In Focus: Months of change ahead The current regional balance in the Middle East looks set to undergo yet another period of turbulent transformation, writes Galal Nassar On 9 April 2003, the US army entered Baghdad, the capital of the Abbasids. This was the second time the city, created by Caliph Abu Jaafar Al-Mansour, was invaded. The first time was by the Mongols, who raped, looted and burned the city, putting an end to the Abbasid Empire. Blinded by arrogance, the 2003 invaders imagined that the occupation of Iraq would be the prelude to a new American century, one in which the US would control the world economy through the production and trade of oil. But the brave Iraqis didn't give in. From the second day of the occupation of Baghdad, popular resistance was in full swing, brave, legendary and determined. Against the odds and a media blockade, the Iraqis fought like lions. All of this happened four years ago and a lot of water has passed under the bridge since then. Political equations changed in the regional and international arenas. Today, it seems that the American project will be defeated, vindicating what analysts from across the political spectrum had predicted in Al-Ahram Weekly, as events unfolded. The only question worth asking today is the date of withdrawal of occupation forces. Will it be in September 2008, or before or afterwards? The date of withdrawal doesn't depend only on the intensity of military confrontation in Iraq, but also on purely US domestic considerations. The Democrats are trying to end the US occupation of Iraq before naming their candidate for the presidential elections of November 2008. Understandably, the Democrats prefer to focus on their own electoral programme, rather than be burdened with Iraq. President George W Bush, however, is aiming to get the Democrats bogged down in Iraq just as the Republicans are. The scale of fighting in Iraq may influence plans for future withdrawals. But there are other considerations as well. Take, for instance, the anti-war campaigns in the US and UK. A majority of congressmen, including some Republicans, want to see US troops brought home as soon as possible. A majority of Americans want a pullout before September 2008. Take Iran's nuclear programme as well. Many Iraqi officials, including top government officials, are pro-Iranian. The Daawa Party, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, and Muqtada Al-Sadr's supporters are all represented in the government, the army and the police. So, a US-Iranian military confrontation would lead to one of two consequences. Either the US would have to admit its failure and pull out of Iraq, which for the moment seems unlikely, or the US would have to change the map of political alliances in the region in a radical manner, something that might already be happening. A year ago, Amr Moussa visited Iraq, the first-ever visit by an Arab League secretary-general since 1990. Moussa called for a national reconciliation conference to be held. Soon afterwards, Arab officials began talking about a "Shia crescent", Iranian threats, and the Arab identity of Iraq. The sad thing is that such remarks undermined rather than consolidated Iraq's sense of identity. The recent Arab summit in Riyadh was a step forward for it tried -- however belatedly -- to find an answer to Iraq's problems. The conference was held at a time when US international stature was waning. Arab leaders were aware that fresh international alliances were taking shape and that many countries, especially those in Latin America, were forging their policy independently from the US. The final statement of the Riyadh conference mirrored that mood. The regional tour by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has created a momentum for peace. The tour may have also aimed to change alliances in the region and perhaps revitalise the Saudi-Egyptian-Syrian axis. The Democrats wish to isolate Tehran rather than confront it. They prefer sanctions to active hostilities. Such a policy may have implications for Lebanon. The Americans will try to distance the Syrians from Hizbullah, or persuade the latter to lay down its arms and become a civil political movement. This, from the US point of view, would first help Israel by reducing the pressure on its northern borders, and second deprive Tehran of a potent bargaining chip. In Iraq, the confrontation in Al-Diwaniya between the US army and Al-Sadr's supporters presages a change in the political map. The US is clamping down on the Al-Sadr current because it seeks to include Sunnis in the political process. The Sadr current has been accused of killing thousands of Iraqis across the ethnic spectrum, including Abdel-Maguid Al-Khuei and Mohamed Baqer Al-Hakim. Iran recently prevented the plane of Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki from passing through its airspace. This could be a sign that Iran is rethinking its alliances in Iraq and the region. Were Iranian officials afraid that Al-Maliki's plane would take aerial pictures of nuclear sites? It is not clear yet why Iran took this decision, but some things are about to change in the region, this much is clear.
